This chapter discusses some widely used strategies (not just in psychiatry but elsewhere) for inferring causal relations, including randomized controlled trials and instrumental variables. The author emphasizes the advantages of these design-based strategies over more traditional strategies based on identifying and conditioning on possible confounders. However, these design-based strategies can come with costs, including failures of generalizability and interpretability, as well as inattention to patient heterogeneity. The role of such considerations as stability and specificity in controlling for possible confounders, as well as the benefits of triangulation strategies, is also emphasized.

Work on causation in psychopathology often emphasizes variation in the causes, but variation in what is to be explained further complicates matters. Focusing on the protean nature of psychopathology, this chapter explores different ways classificatory variation is generated. For example, choices about what features of disorders to foreground and background can produce variation. The chapter also examines, from the perspective of scientific conventionalism, how classificatory decisions made at choice points partly constitute what is classified, but not in the sense of making it up. In contrast to the view that conventions are neither true nor false and thus isolated from the domain of facts, the chapter argues that scientific conventions are implemented to promote the discovery of facts. Scientific conventions must also answer to conceptual and factual constraints. The chapter concludes by looking at how classificatory choices can produce different versions of a psychiatric, which may also result in variations in causal models across those versions. In agreement with the ideas articulated by Putnam, the chapter argues that we cannot divide the language of psychopathology into a part that describes disorders as they are in themselves and a part that contains our conceptual contributions to what we know about disorders.

Shaun Gallagher in his chapter argues that those who study psychopathology can adopt a level-free vocabulary without having to give up the explanatory virtues of levels of analysis thinking. In doing so, they can potentially make new contributions to our knowledge of psychopathology.

The topic under consideration is Curll’s deployment of imprints, among the most important tools of his trade. He found it acceptable on many occasions to follow the conventional forms, along the lines of ‘London: printed for E. Curll, at the Dial and Bible against St. Dunstan’s Church in Fleet-street.’ However, there are many exceptions. This chapter discusses variant forms described by David Foxon. It itemises some cases where the imprint is incomplete or unreliable. They include, for example, works which have the same text but different names on the title-page; those in which Curll’s name appears and disappears in succeeding editions); and instances where a trade publisher such as James Roberts is found in the imprint on certain occasions, but is absent in others. Ways are described to identify Curll’s hand when his name is omitted. Along with comparatively innocent subterfuges, we find elsewhere what can be described as ‘false and misleading imprints’, a subject pioneered by Michael Treadwell.

This chapter tells a story of the 1996 integrative theoretical framework by García Coll and colleagues for understanding child development among minoritized and oppressed communities in the United States. Using both research and first-person retrospective accounts to understand the model’s development and use, this chapter examines the impact of the model for studying the development of youth from ethnic and racial groups that are often marginalized in the United States, while also exploring topics such as ethnic and racial discrimination, the conceptual complexity of intervention research with youth from minoritized communities, and shifting ideas about culture that inform how we use the model today. This chapter weaves first person reflections by lead author García Coll on the model’s successes, limitations, and future directions throughout the chapter with the intent to inspire and support the next generations of scholars in shaping the way we think about, study, and act to end ethnic and racial youth discrimination and support ethnically and racially minoritized youth developmental competencies.

State legislators' utilization of model legislation reflects an important degree of interest group influence at the fine-tuned bill drafting stage. I consider model bills drafted by sixty-six national-level organizations. Using an original dataset containing the text of all versions of bills considered in state legislatures from 1995 to 2019, I detect the use of these groups' model bills within state legislatures using textual analysis based on plagiarism detection. I confirm that model legislation uptake decreases as legislative capacity increases. Generally, other studies and journalistic efforts study ALEC, a conservative powerhouse nonprofit which prolifically produces model bills. My focus on a broader swath of the groups that produce model bills can give us a better sense of the correlates of when legislators use these bills. I model the percentage of the legislative agenda that comes from ALEC, non-ALEC model bills, and a liberal group. As legislative expenditures increase, the reliance on model bills decreases. On the legislator-level, legislators use fewer model bills of all kinds as they gain experience in the form of more years on the job as legislator. These bills are useful for legislators and legislatures with lower capacity, but a subpar strategy given the lack of tailoring to the individual state needs or formats.

This chapter provides an introduction to key concepts in optimization with motivating applications. We begin with a categorization of different optimization problems, based on the objective function, to be maximized or minimized, and constraint equations that limit the set of feasible solutions. Next we introduce two major concepts in optimization: convexity and the gradient. Convex problems are essentially solved, at least numerically. Linear programming and quadratic programming are both convex. Nonconvex problems are more challenging. However, there is a shift in optimization, where it is increasingly possible to solve nonconvex problems. The gradient is another fundamental concept, providing information about the geometry of the optimization landscape, and which direction locally improves the solution. We then show how Lagrange multipliers are an intuitive way of handling constraints. We conclude with three major applications: inverse problems, control theory, and machine learning. Throughout, we give examples to illustrate how to formulate an optimization problem and solve it algorithmically.

A paradigm shift is necessary to understand the ocean’s role in the Anthropocene. Rather than viewing the ocean through terra-centric frameworks as biased as, for example, the Eurocentric views of former “Orientalist” scholarship, it urges us to “think through water.” Doing so requires us to vertically explore Earth’s different spatial layers, from subsoil to outer space, that artificial islands gave access to. A paradigm shift also requires a focus on people who sought realistic, sustainable solutions when marine regions were profoundly reshaped. It demands an analysis of the Ages of Coal and Oil in view of oceanic energy transitions and their impacts. The coevolution between humans and other species also must be reexamined regarding the extension of the human habitat, marine biomass concentrations, and invasive species translocations. Exploring the clashes between various environmentalist and developmentalist “schools” of thought is essential, as is understanding the spatial competition among users of marine regions. Finally, the terrestrial mindset must be shed, ranging from climate adaptation thought to geo-ontological views of global production centers and peripheries.

This chapter examines what is considered a fact in individual communications processed by the Human Rights Committee (HRC), recognized as the UN’s most authoritative human rights monitoring body. Despite its significance, little is known about the HRC’s handling of individual complaints against states that have signed the optional protocol. Through the case studies of Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (2018) and Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland (2018), which address the inclusion of new voters on the Sámi Parliament’s electoral roll, the chapter scrutinizes the Committee’s evidentiary practices. Notably, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court added ninety-three persons to the Sámi Parliament’s electoral roll, while an unreferenced study suggested over half a million could be eligible. The Committee included this study without verifying its reliability. The chapter explores how evidence is translated and distanced from Committee members, questioning how material veracity is determined. It concludes by reflecting on how the HRC’s evidentiary regime shapes and supports certain narratives while marginalizing others.